AVINASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are purchasers from one Indu Devi. Indu Devi by four sale deeds sold 8 dhurs of land to Avinash Kumar, 4 dhurs of land to Bebiya Devi and 5 dhurs of land to Suresh Prasad and others. She also sold from the lands adjacent to aforesaid plot to one Ramkrit. Respondent No. 4 filed an application for pre-emption on the ground that she is a boundary raiyat to the lands which have been sold to the Petitioner. It may be mentioned that only three pre-emption applications were filed.

(2.) Although, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector found that Respondent No. 4 was a boundary raiyat, he rejected the plea of pre-emption on the ground that the enquiry conducted by the Circle Officer, discloses that the lands in question were situated in the main village chowk and were only capable of being used for residential purposes: The Enquiry Report has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application which indicates that Indu Devi had 22 dhurs of land which was enclosed by a boundary wall. She has sold the lands within the said boundary wall to the Petitioners and one Ramkrit. The lands have been described as Basgit lands. The Circle Officer also found that the bricks and sand had already accumulated over the plot and construction work for building the house had commenced on the date on which the Circle Officer inspected the plot in question.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the lands have been described as Basgit i.e. homestead lands of Kiran Kumari, the vendor. This Court finds after perusal of the records that the lands were situated in the main chowk of the village, under the Tajpur Police Station. The area where the land was situated was 'main chowk' of the village, which necessarily means that it is either a residential area or a market place. The lands were not capable of being used for agricultural purposes, for the reasons that they were very small plots of land. The larger plot of land which was sold to the Petitioner was of 8 dhurs, it would be equivalent to 544.40 sq. ft.; 4 dhurs would be about 272 sq. ft.; whereas 5 dhurs would be a little more than 272 sq. ft. It is submitted that obviously such small strips of land sold to four Petitioners, who are not in any way related to each other can hardly be utilized for any agriculture, horticulture or any purpose associated with agriculture.